^^^ I would qualify that a bit in the sense that when Genesis, Yes, Gentle Giant shift time signatures or motives, there is a sense of a strong underlying vocabulary, if I might call it that, that binds it together. While Queen's lengthy pieces are more pastiche-like. However, circa 2012, a pastiche approach to putting together a prog rock songs is quite pervasive so it is not really a disqualification, rather, just to say, that I don't quite consider Queen II as prog as Fragile or SEBTP (and what is more prog or less prog is itself a very subjective and undefinable notion) but there are many albums even from the 70s that it casts in the shade.

I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

But what are those ground rules? The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued. This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all. If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA... (something that I agree with, by the way)

Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive. LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG. At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog? These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock. So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion. I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog. If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples.

If there are no rigid tenets on what is prog, then why is there such a site? Why not call it ĎMusic Archivesí?It seems to me that there is no point in a defining something as a genre if it then dreams up excuses to include everything and anything . Iím all for not having barriers of any kind then there wonít be an argument about who is in or out. But weíll have to re-name the site.

Why should the absence of rigid tenets stop people from following the general idea? Everybody has a general idea of prog that broadly converges and that is enough. There will be bands about which people disagree as to whether they are prog but there is really no need to rigidly interpret what is prog for the sole purpose of obstructing such exceptions. Any music genre that evolves with time cannot be defined rigidly; only a broad understanding of its nature is possible.

As Roger inferred, the flaw in your thinking is that you believe there are some progressive commandments lowered from on high that rigidly set in stone which bands can be progressive and which ones cannot. I find this at odds with consensus assumptions concerning bands that are, and always will be, the very pillars and foundations of the prog-rock movement.

As I alluded to previously, both Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull are generally considered two of the big five prog bands (along with Genesis, Yes and King Crimson), yet Floyd and Tull have infinitely more songs that are not, in any way, shape or form, considered progressive rock compositions (at least according to the most stratified standards you wish to maintain). Why then are they not disqualified from your little list? Likewise, Genesis has spent half their career not being a progressive rock band. What then constitutes a prog-rock band in your mind?

Just because Queen didn't dwell on prog-rock for a preponderance of their albums doe not mean that a few of their albums were not in the progressive sphere. Songs from Queen I ("King Rat" and "Liar") exhibit all the necessary nuance and compositional qualities that enumerate a prog-rock song, and on Queen II that propensity becomes even more pronounced. I don't see how anyone with a modicum of musical knowledge could say "March of the Black Queen" is not a progressive song in length, adherence to classical composition and harmonies, odd and shifting time signatures, exotic phrasing and mythological lyrics:

Also from that album "Procession", "Father to Son", "White Queen (As It Began)", "Ogre Battles", and even "The Fairy Feller's Master Stroke", a song based on a portrait in London's Tait Gallery, is replete with progressive moments (mad baroque piano in that one). It is, for all intents and purpose, as progressive an album as Yes' Fragile, Tull's Aqualung and Minstrel in the Gallery, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, or Genesis' Trick of the Tail and Winds and Wuthering.

Queen II was far beyond any rock album released in 1974, particularly in regards to cutting edge multi-layered harmonies and frantic guitar and piano riffs. If you review Queen's A Night at the Opera, much the same could be said. Along with from such songs as "'39", "The Prophet's Song" and "Good Company", "Bohemian Rhapsody" is the epitome of a prog-rock song and does indeed adhere to the rhapsodic form. It is as progressive as Genesis' Supper's Ready with its nod to the Sonata. As critic Steve Erlwhine of Allmusic.com noted, "But the appeal -- and the influence -- of A Night at the Opera is in its detailed, meticulous productions. It's prog rock with a sense of humor as well as dynamics...". I couldn't say it any better.

Edited by The Dark Elf - March 18 2012 at 12:56

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destinedto take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

But what are those ground rules? The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued. This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all. If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA... (something that I agree with, by the way)

Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive. LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG. At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog? These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock. So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion. I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog. If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples.

If there are no rigid tenets on what is prog, then why is there such a site? Why not call it ĎMusic Archivesí?It seems to me that there is no point in a defining something as a genre if it then dreams up excuses to include everything and anything . Iím all for not having barriers of any kind then there wonít be an argument about who is in or out. But weíll have to re-name the site.

Why should the absence of rigid tenets stop people from following the general idea? Everybody has a general idea of prog that broadly converges and that is enough. There will be bands about which people disagree as to whether they are prog but there is really no need to rigidly interpret what is prog for the sole purpose of obstructing such exceptions. Any music genre that evolves with time cannot be defined rigidly; only a broad understanding of its nature is possible.

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance, who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.

There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.

Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.

It's your thinking that isn't clear enough. I personally just like music and don't like rules or prejudice against forms of music I don't necessarily like. I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

You blithely ignored the legitimate comparisons between Tull and Queen as far as their output. Some albums are very prog, some not as much, others not at all, yet I don't think many posters here would consider Tull "on the outside looking in", because it's a daft proposition. This type of rigid and specious thinking makes the old adage "can't tell the forests from the trees" appropriate here.

As Rogerthat pointed out, Progarchives has clearly labeled Queen as "Prog-related". I can live with that, and obviously the "devotees" whom you allegedly speak for do not hold to your stilted convictions. And as far as Zeppelin and The Who, I don't believe anyone here would argue the point that Quadrophenia is a progressive rock album, or that songs like "Kashmir", "No Quarter", "Achilles Last Stand" or "In The Light" are prog.

Your argument, or rather your personal opinion, does not hold water, nor does it reflect most of the members of this forum who have posted on the subject. Radical fundamentalism is bad in prog as it is in politics.

Tull and Queen are two vastly different kettles of fish, and I like both. As for rigid thinking, youíre still missing the point Ė Iím not the one saying that there should be inclusions/exclusions, members of prog archives are. All Iím saying is that if there is such a genre, then by its very nature there has to be inclusions/exclusions, otherwise there IS no genre.

Itís not a case of my argument not holding water, you donít even have a bucket.

Words are always inadequate to describe complex emotions and thoughts, leaving much room for manoeuvrefor those looking to disagree, and can of course be worked both ways, rendering any discussion meaningless in any way other than grammar,I donít care to do that, itís mere nit-picking for its own sake, and tiresome in the extreme. As for inclusions, prog archives includes everything and anything, finding justification in all kinds of obscure sub-classifications that bring us back to no genre at all

I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

But what are those ground rules? The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued. This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all. If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA... (something that I agree with, by the way)

Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive. LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG. At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog? These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock. So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion. I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog. If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples.

If there are no rigid tenets on what is prog, then why is there such a site? Why not call it ĎMusic Archivesí?It seems to me that there is no point in a defining something as a genre if it then dreams up excuses to include everything and anything . Iím all for not having barriers of any kind then there wonít be an argument about who is in or out. But weíll have to re-name the site.

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance, who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.

There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.

Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.

It's your thinking that isn't clear enough. I personally just like music and don't like rules or prejudice against forms of music I don't necessarily like. I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

You blithely ignored the legitimate comparisons between Tull and Queen as far as their output. Some albums are very prog, some not as much, others not at all, yet I don't think many posters here would consider Tull "on the outside looking in", because it's a daft proposition. This type of rigid and specious thinking makes the old adage "can't tell the forests from the trees" appropriate here.

As Rogerthat pointed out, Progarchives has clearly labeled Queen as "Prog-related". I can live with that, and obviously the "devotees" whom you allegedly speak for do not hold to your stilted convictions. And as far as Zeppelin and The Who, I don't believe anyone here would argue the point that Quadrophenia is a progressive rock album, or that songs like "Kashmir", "No Quarter", "Achilles Last Stand" or "In The Light" are prog.

Your argument, or rather your personal opinion, does not hold water, nor does it reflect most of the members of this forum who have posted on the subject. Radical fundamentalism is bad in prog as it is in politics.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destinedto take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

I should also point out that you have now veered from your earlier position in saying it is just your opinion. In a response earlier to Pedro, you said, "Nice speech, but doesn't change the FACT that it's not prog". Er, it's not something factual and at any rate, Queen are not so unrelated to prog. And that's not up to you, the website says that they are prog related and that classification is widely accepted by the members, as far as I know.

I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

But what are those ground rules? The fact that LZ and Who are in here as proto prog and Queen as prog related shows that there really are no rigid tenets on what is prog, as The Dark Elf rightly argued. This website tries to maintain some consistency in its inclusions but that's all. If I told you that Bjork is considered crossover prog in PA... (something that I agree with, by the way)

Oh, and by the way, welcome to prog v/s progressive. LZ, Who, Queen were far, far more PROGRESSIVE than many bands that get called PROG. At what point do we suggest that even the music being progressive is not enough to call it prog because it's too far removed from any generally held notions of prog? These three bands that you happened to mention firmly live up to the ROCK part of prog rock. So you may choose to believe or not to believe someone, but it's hardly such a ludicrous suggestion. I suspect the fact that these three bands are already part of the classic rock canon accounts for much of your resistance to the idea that they may have something to do with prog. If so, I meet your Queen and Who with Pink Floyd and Jethro Tull, also classic rock staples.

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance, who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.

There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.

Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.

It's your thinking that isn't clear enough. I personally just like music and don't like rules or prejudice against forms of music I don't necessarily like. I didn't set the ground rules for Prog, others did, possibly you among them. All I was saying is that when a genre is defined by devotees, there must by definition be inclusions and exclusions, and we all have our own opinions on who is in and who is out. To me, bands like Led Zeppelin, The Who, Queen, are clearly outside looking in. I personally admire all three of those bands, but don't tell me they belong in the genre known as Prog, for I won't believe you.

However, the 20th century has been about breaking apart all music, regardless of its anything ...

Ah, but 20th century is already so...well, 20th century. They already decided modernist overreach is bad for us. But they forgot to give us an alternative solution instead, leaving post modern confusion in its wake.

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

In that case, like Mr.John Casey, I shall proclaim in protest that let there be no church for prog.

Agreed.

Specially when we're petty, overgrown little babies fighting for our own chocolate bar, and not willing or conceiding other folks opinions on the matter.

In tne end, this just shows why the "definition" of progressive music is so messed up. We can't even agree on anything on it, so we know how to define it. Not to mention that some parts of the definition are "opinion" and not a reality of the music and its creators.

However, the 20th century has been about breaking apart all music, regardless of its anything ... so us saying that something it not progressive, or prog, is like saying ... we don't even care for the 20th century and what brought us to this point in music! ... nice ... keep ignoring your wife and children to see where it gets you!

This is one of the big, hard, and very difficult things for PA or anyone else to work on and with. With an output of so many pieces that are considered "progressive" this band should be able to get the credit it also deserves as very original and creative, in a very progressive manner, even if its medium was popular music and song. I have no issue accepting those bands into the mix. They deserve it on musicianship alone, a lot more than any Metallica wannabe or lookalike deserves to in my book and they are getting yet another metal-prog definition of some sort.

Edited by moshkito - March 12 2012 at 10:46

... none of the hits, none of the time ... now you know what the art is all about! www.pedrosena.com

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

In that case, like Mr.John Casey, I shall proclaim in protest that let there be no church for prog.

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

My, what a shallow sandbox you play in. It is far too confining, First, equating prog to a church is rather farcical, given there is not a set dogma or tenets in stone associated with progressive rock, There are many bands, like Jethro Tull for instance, who have progressive albums (Thick as a Brick, A Passion Play, Minstrel in the Gallery, Songs From the Wood), and albums that are altogether not progressive (This Was, Benefit, War Child, Too Old to Rock and Roll, etc.), and still other albums (Stand Up, Aqualung, Heavy Horses, Stormwatch, etc.) which, depending on my mood, I could argue for or against progressivity in the rock sphere. The fact that not every Tull album was progressive does not make the albums that were indeed progressive something else altogether, and even in specific albums there are songs that are progressive while others are not. The same could be said of other "progressive bands" like Yes and Genesis.

There is no "drawing a line" with a band like Jethro Tull, just as there is no line-drawing regarding Queen. They did what they wanted, when the hell they wanted, and were not confined to some dogmatic adherence to a specific set of rules. Your rules. Whatever they are.

Perhaps you should elucidate as to what you consider "the rules", You keep making imperious statements that have no basis of fact. Repeating an opinion does not an argument make.

...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destinedto take the place of the mud shark in your mythology...

I have sympathy for some of the views expressed complaining about defining something as Prog. But if we have to have a Church called Prog, then we have to draw lines somewhere in the sand to assemble the congregation. I like some of Queen but IMO they would be outside knocking on the church doors during the service.

Said so, the only Queen track that I'm used to skip is Delilah, I can resist even to Don't Loose Your Head and I feel an unconditional love for Jazz.

As I have written before, their defect is just the discontinuity which has caused some tracks to be recorded instead of forgotten into a closet, but they are well balanced by a huge number of masterpieces.

I would avoid comparing bands. As somebody has written, we have Tori Amos as prog and Kate Bush is related, even Vangelis is only related and I think he's totally prog. After Aphrodite's child he made Jazz-rock, Progressive Electronic, Avant and even something psychedelic. We may start discussions of this kind about a lot of bands and artists and we'll always find something controversial. You are Russian and probably know Senmuth. He's in Experimental and his side project NeNasty has been rejected.

And with those five albums Queen are more prog than half of prog-related bands on PA, like Black Sabbath or Led Zeppelin (which I've never considered 'prog' except for Sabbath's 'Sabotage' and Zeppelin's 'In Through the Outdoor' and a few songs from other albums).

I'm not argue that Queen are prog-related, and I'm not calling them a prog band overall. But the first five albums are prog, even with pop songs on them. And not vice versa (i.e. not a pop albums with prog songs on them).

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum